On 19 May, the Anti-Corruption Court, presided over by Judge Narine Avagyan, continued the examination of the claim of confiscation of illicit property from the former Governor of Syunik Surik Khachatryan and 5 people related to him in favor of the Republic of Armenia.
His wife Loreta Barseghyan, sons Tigran and Trdat Khachatryan, their related persons Vardan Barseghyan, Manvel Malintsyan, Erik Hambardzumyan, Lusine Barseghyan and Norayr Mnatsakanyan appeared on the list. The application is for the confiscation of properties and assets of illegal origin with a value of about 19.1 billion drams.
According to Iravaban.net, at the beginning of the session, the judge informed that the son-in-law of Surik Khachatryan, Ruben Galstyan, informed the court that within the framework of the case under investigation, the subject of the lawsuit filed by the Prosecutor General’s Office included the demand to confiscate the 100 percent share belonging to Erik Hambardzumyan, the 2nd son-in-law of Khachatryan, in the “S.K. GAZ” LLC.
Ruben Galstyan told the court that both he and Erik Hambardzumyan are participants in the mentioned company, each with 50 percent shares. He noted that the facts of the Prosecutor’s Office regarding the 100% share of the company belonging to Erik Hambardzumyan do not correspond to reality. Galstyan petitioned the court to involve the company as a third party in the case.
“He also asked to resume the investigation of the case if the petition is granted,” the judge said.
Gevorg Kocharyan, the Senior Prosecutor of the Department for Confiscation of Property of Illicit Origin of the RA Prosecutor General’s Office, stated that he has no objection to the involvement of a third party, but he objects to resuming the investigation of the case. “I find that in the past stages, there was no such discussion, in which the given person’s non-participation will later deprive him of the opportunity to protect his interests.”
Vahagn Grigoryan, the representative of the defendants, said that the competent authority should either reduce the subject of the claim, or should involve the petitioner not as a third party, but as a defendant, because it is a claim directed directly against the latter.
“Since the Civil Procedure Code empowers only the plaintiff to bring in a defendant, I think that the company could not file a motion to bring in a defendant, that’s why it filed a motion to bring in a third party,” the lawyer noted, adding that he is not against the motion and agrees.
The prosecutor said that they should make adjustments, after which they will decide whether to change the subject of the lawsuit or not.
Vahagn Grigoryan expressed opinion that it would be right for the companies whose shares were demanded to be confiscated to be involved in the case as third parties. “I suggest that the plaintiff submits the motion for involvement, because they have the information in a more systematic manner.”
Prosecutor Gevorg Kocharyan noted, however, that the Prosecutor’s Office avoids submitting such a petition, because the more third parties are involved in the case, the more complicated the judicial process will be. “Determined by the number of the same notifications, procedural documents.”
The prosecutor mentioned that he will provide Vahagn Grigoryan with the data of legal entities, the information he has, so that the latter can submit a petition for the involvement of third parties.
The court session was postponed.
Yevgenya Hambardzumyan
